[PD] Purpose of sig~

[Jamie Bullock]

On 4 Nov 2010, at 09:50, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> On 2010-11-03 15:46, Jamie Bullock wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This is more of philosophical question than anything else. I'm curious to know why [sig~] hasn't been designed out of Pd. Why not have implicit control -> signal conversion everywhere it is possible?
>> 
>> For example why not allow this?
>> 
>> |2(	|3(
>> |	|
>> [+~ ]
>> 
> 
> i don't think i understand your question.

Well retrospectively, the question doesn't make any sense at all because it's based on a test I did with a (subsequently discovered) broken bang~.

See bug https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3102828&group_id=55736&atid=478070

So I thought that implicit conversions weren't working, when in fact bang~ wasn't triggering my snapshot~.

Jamie


> the above is totally legal on the versions of Pd i have installed on
> this machine.
> 
> otoh, [sig~] has been there for ages and longer.
> some old patches might still use it, because _then_ you had to
> explicitely convert to signals. should [sig~] be removed and break these
> patches?
> 
> and while i do use implicit float/signal conversion in my patches, i
> think explicit conversion is not that bad either: it may prevent people
> from hooking a slider into a [*~] and then complain why they get glitches.
> 
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list